The broad concept of the “Rolling Road” where tractor-trailer rigs drive on and off a train is well-known in Europe, albeit over limited routes. This type of piggyback service is known as a “Rolling Road”, where truckers literally drive onto a specially made flatcar with smaller diameter wheels (to lower the overall height to clear tunnels). In Europe, the trailer and the truck (tractor) are loaded together, and the drivers may then retire to a passenger coach attached to the train. At the end of the journey, the tractor-trailers are driven off the flatcars and the drivers resume their journey.
Seidelmann, “40 Years of Road-Rail Combined Transport in Europe” published in 2010, summarizes various road/rail schemes in Europe. Of particular interest is chapter 5 (page 25) which describes the “Rolling Highway” concept, in which a tractor-trailer rig is driven onto a flatcar and then secured in place, while the driver rides in an accompanying passenger car. The document is silent as to how the trucks are attached to the flatcar. The comments on pages 26-28 are worth noting. The “rolling highway” concept has been successful only in some parts of Europe where special circumstances make it cost-effective. Carrying tractors, as well as trailers, increases the load weight and cost per ton of freight. On some routes, the system is economical, as it allows drivers to sleep and thus comply with rest hour regulations.
Seigenthaler, “Truck Drivers Hit the Rails and Take a Break”, published Aug. 27, 2012 also describes the “Rolling Road” concept. “Rolling Highway”, Wikipedia printed Mar. 15, 2014, also describes the “Rolling Road” concept. “Roadrailer”, Wikipedia, printed Mar. 16, 2014, describes the system disclosed in Willetts, U.S. Pat. No. 4,385,857, issued May 31, 1983, described below.
The “rolling road” concept has met with limited success in Europe, as it is only cost-effective on certain routes. The cost of labor of loading and unloading trains at each end of the journey adds to the cost of the rolling road concept. In the United States, “Piggyback” systems have been used with some success. However, such systems are of no use to the owner/operator of a truck/trailer, as the trailer is attached to the railcar, and then picked up at the destination by another driver. A “Rolling Road” concept could allow a tractor-trailer driver to deliver goods across larger distances, saving fuel and avoiding long, tiresome drives. The time spent sleeping or relaxing on a railcar would help drivers comply with rest-hour regulations for truckers. However, in order for such a “Rolling Road” system to work, it would have to be quick and easy to use, and also low cost.
One problem with these “Rolling Road” concepts, in addition to the cost/benefit analysis, is the time needed to load a series of trucks onto a railcar, and then secure each truck to a railcar. Systems such as the “Autotrain” which is run by AMTRACK from Lorton, Va. to Sanford, Fla., requires passengers to arrive often hours before the train departs, so that cars may be inspected, driven onto train cars (by a group of professional drivers) and then individually secured into place with straps, chains, or other traditional securing mechanisms. Upon arrival at the destination, the same process is repeated, and the passenger can wait an hour or two for their car to be unstrapped, unloaded, and delivered to them for use. A need exists in the art for such auto transport systems to allow for a vehicle to be easily loaded, preferably by the driver of the vehicle, and then automatically secured. The savings in time and labor would be tremendous.
The Prior Art references cited above make no mention as to how the tractor-trailers are secured on these “rolling road” trains. There is mention that the flatcars are narrow and there is very tight clearance between the tires of the trucks and the side rails. It appears the vehicles are attached to the flatbed cars using traditional chains, straps, chocks, and other devices known in the art.
There are also various techniques for loading tractor-trailers (or at least trailers) onto railroad flatcars, or similar techniques. In the United States, this “piggyback” technique involves removing the trailer from the tractor and loading onto a flatcar (by crane, or using a yard mule) and then securing the trailer to a 5th wheel hitch attachment. The tractor portion is generally not loaded. Most references show a 5th wheel hitch attachment mechanism.
Other techniques have been tried, including using the trailers themselves as railcars, either with attached railroad trucks (which proved to be too heavy) or by attaching the trailers to railroad trucks. With the advent of containerized transport (Intermodal) these sorts of techniques seem to have fallen by the wayside. Indeed, even traditional “piggyback” freight services seem to have given way to containerized (Intermodal) cargo.
There are a number of wheel strapping and chocking devices known in the art, as illustrated in the following references. A number of references show various means of attaching vehicle wheels to flatcars or car carriers or trailers. Most of these use straps or chocks or a combination of both, to secure the tire portion to the carrier.
Anderson et al., U.S. Pat. No. 8,272,818, issued Sep. 25, 2013, discloses an auto-rack railroad car vehicle wheel chock. Autorack rail cars are commonly used to transport new automobiles. The invention discloses a wheel chock for securing a vehicle in a grill-like track.
Coslovi et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,666,148, issued Dec. 23, 2003, discloses a vehicle carrying railroad car structure. This is one of a number of references directed toward “piggyback” style rail transport, where trailers are placed on a flatcar and secured using a pop-up 5th wheel hitch. Coslovi is silent as to what, if anything, secures the wheels in his design.
Minakami et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,095,731, issued Aug. 1, 2000, discloses a wheel fixing apparatus. This reference is representative of a number of wheel (or more accurately, tire) strapping and chocking devices, which are manually applied to vehicle wheels.
Collins, U.S. Pat. No. 5,795,115, issued Aug. 18, 1998, discloses an apparatus for loading a vehicle to a trailer. Collins attaches a device to the hub of the car, which in turn, engages a bracket on the trailer. This is one of the few devices that actually engages the wheel (or part of the wheel) and not the tire of the vehicle. Even so, this reference requires a device be attached to the vehicle wheel hub.
Engle, U.S. Pat. No. 5,501,566, issued Mach 26, 1996, discloses a system for supporting trailers on railcars. Again, this is another example of a “Piggyback” type system. A truck (yard mule) drives the trailer onto the train, and a bracket on the truck engages a pop-up 5th wheel to latch onto the trailer, automatically.
Fity et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,668,142, issued May 26, 1987, discloses a car-carrier with each wheel-train equipped with its own carrying cross-structures. Moveable wheel brackets engage the tires of the cars.
Willetts, U.S. Pat. No. 4,385,857, issued May 31, 1983, discloses an Intermodal transport system. See FIG. 2. This is part of a system, discussed above, that used train trucks to carry trailers modified to serve as railcars.
Shannon, U.S. Pat. No. 4,129,079, issued Dec. 12, 1978, discloses a railroad car for highway trailers. This system allows a yard mule to back a trailer onto the flatcar form the side, and then pivot the front of the trailer to latch the 5th wheel in place. While the device shows a mechanism for supporting the rear wheels of the trailer, it does not appear to latch or clamp the wheels in any way, but merely provide a chocking function.
Gutridge, U.S. Pat. No. 3,568,607, issued Mar. 9, 1971, discloses a railroad flatcar for transporting containers and highway trailers. It appears the trailers are secured only by the 5th wheel hitch.
Gwatkin, U.S. Pat. No. 2,036,212, issued Apr. 7, 1936, discloses a device for positioning a vehicle in a convenyance. Note the use of the U-shaped bracket to engage the tire of the car.
Kaushik, “Vert-A-Pac: An Unusual Way to Transport Automobiles” printed Mar. 16, 2014, discloses the vertical transport system used for the ill-fated Vega automobile.
All of the above references suffer from some drawbacks. The 5th-wheel carriers carry only trailers, and not the trucks themselves. The various wheel chocks, straps, and chains require manual installation or securing by a person in the railroad yard, which is costly, time-consuming, and dangerous.
Thus, it remains a requirement in the art to provide an automated means for securing a tractor trailer combination to a railroad car or the like, without the need for intervention by manual installation of securing devices or the like.